JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal by the defendant who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

Plaintiff is the owner of the suit house, the same having been purchased from one Krishnarao Armarkar by a registered sale-deed dated 12.12.1977. Before the sale deed came to be executed there was also an agreement of sale between Krishnarao Armarkar and the plaintiff on 09.09.1977. The plaintiff submits that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. One Kamlabai Rokde was residing in the suit property 3 to 4 years prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant who is the neighboring plot owner, in order to grab the suit property got executed a sale-deed from Kamlabai Rokde in his favour on 30.09.1977. The defendant however could not take possession of the suit property and therefore he got annoyed and caused damage to the wall. There were proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against both plaintiff and the defendant. Some proceedings were also initiated against both parties under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned S. D. M. appointed the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council as a Receiver and the Receiver took over the possession of the suit property. Plaintiff, therefore, submits that being the owner of the suit property he is entitled to possession of the suit property.

3. The defendant No.1 filed Written Statement. He admits that he purchased the house from Kamalbai Rokde by sale deed dated 03.09.1977. It is alleged by the defendant that Kamlabai's husband Baburao had purchased the suit property from its original owner Krishnarao Armarkar and his mother. She had purchased the property 20 to 22 years ago. Therefore Baburao and his wife Kamlabai were living in the suit house as owner thereof. Since Kamlabai was not in a position to pay the taxes etc. and maintain the property she sold the suit property to the defendant. It is fUlther contended that Kamlabai was in possession of the suit property as the owner thereof openly and to the knowledge of everybody and, therefore, she had become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. It is contended that therefore no valid title passed in favour of the plaintiff and in fact defendant had become the owner of the suit property.

4. On these pleadings the learned Judge of the trial Court framed issues. He found that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour. Kamlabai was not the owner of the suit house and therefore the defendant No.1 is not the owner. The appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

5. The second appeal was admitted by Deshpande J. on grounds Nos.8 and 9 as mentioned in the memo of appeal. Since the grounds are exhaustive the following substantial questions of law are formulated as below:

1. Whether the lower appellate Court fell in error in holding that the title passed in favour of the plaintiff under sale deed dated 12.12.1977 even though vendor himself was not in possession of the property and Kamlabai was in possession?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court ought to have framed a point for determination with regard to adverse possession?

6. The plaintiff/respondent claims to have purchased the suit property from Krishnarao Armarkar by a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1977. It is at (Ex.67). On the other hand defendant No.1 claims t(} have purchased the suit property from Kamlabai by registered sale deed dated 30.09.1977 (Ex.75). The material question is which of the two i.e. Krishnarao and Kamlabai could pass a valid title in favour of the purchaser. In this regard, it would be first necessary to advert to the pleadings of the defendant No.1. In para 4 and 9 of the Written Statement, defendant No.1 clearly averred that the suit house was purchased by Kamlabai'

Click Here to Read the rest of this document